"Patriarchy"

[Revoltingest]

And then you gallop over here :run:

Yes, I have a few threads to abuse, including this stud-vs-filly issue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Are you saying that you are officially excusing yourself from learning about feminism because you already know what it is all about based upon your own reasoning?

That and he doesn't have a lot of money, so even though it isn't worth investigating more into, it's worth complaining about how it's impacting society.

Yeah. I know.

 

[Me Myself]

You cherry picked an Oxford dictionary entry online. Here, I can lazily do the same for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy



Oh goodness gracious me, wiki is all-powerful and all-knowing. Or at least a starting point to the many anthropologists that make it their life's work to study cultures around the world and how they developed. Apparently all they had to do was look at MeMyself on the internet in a single post discovered the very essence of what patriarchy is, what it isn't, how it developed, and why we should cry foul over it's use by feminists around the world.

So you did notice they dont know right? Ter eit says so. Egualitarian, then agriculre changed it, and some thi the discrimination started in the time with the patriarchal leanings, with nothing certain.

 

[Me Myself]

That would be true if men were oppressed. Men are not oppressed.

Men face more time in jail than women, female on male rape is not even recognised as rape in a lot of countries, domestic abuse by female to male is universally downplayed.

Both sides have upsides and downsides. Ideally, one should fight all inequality.

 

[Me Myself]

You cherry picked an Oxford dictionary entry online. Here, I can lazily do the same for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy



Oh goodness gracious me, wiki is all-powerful and all-knowing. Or at least a starting point to the many anthropologists that make it their life's work to study cultures around the world and how they developed. Apparently all they had to do was look at MeMyself on the internet in a single post discovered the very essence of what patriarchy is, what it isn't, how it developed, and why we should cry foul over it's use by feminists around the world.

And if you want to trust on wiki then by all means, from wiki :

The problem with the feminists' approach to patriarchy is to blame men; make men the enemy and women the victim. [33] Patriarchy may be a form of domination over others (men and women) but it is likely that women who ascend to positions of power will exercise power the same way as men do; because it is a deep social structure within western society.

 

[Me Myself]

ACTUALLY,!FROM THE SAME ARTICLE!


Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.[35][36] According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation.[35] These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development.[37] Even in modern developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status.[36]

In other words, yes, patriarchy is the construct of cultural components from before it. So yeah, the gender roles were there.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh boy, you totally missed my point.

Did you get the word "lazily" in my post about how I posted the wiki article? My post was in jest. The joke's on you, dear.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh boy, you totally missed my point.

Did you get the word "lazily" in my post about how I posted the wiki article? My post was in jest. The joke's on you, dear.

You mean you actually compared oxford dictionary to wiki?

In any case, you can see sociologist primary tendency is towards patriarchy coming from the culture, being passed down. It doesnt anywhere say that patriarchy is the starter of all gender roles.

Why trust feminism on that? Some time ago it even said there was something like a "matriarchy" in the past, which currently holds no water for today's sociologists.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You mean you actually compared oxford dictionary to wiki?

I compared the level of research you and I did on the subject.

 

[Me Myself]

I compared the level of research you and I did on the subject.

The thread is about the meaning of a word. Oxford dictionary is a very reasonable source for that.

Furthermore, y have not provided any evidence that patriarchy created gender roles. I mean, none.

Yet, without evidence, the concept is treated as if it equated such.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The thread is about the meaning of a word. Oxford dictionary is a very reasonable source for that.

Furthermore, y have not provided any evidence that patriarchy created gender roles. I mean, none.

Yet, without evidence, the concept is treated as if it equated such.

Ah, so NOW the thread is about the meaning of "patriarchy". Yet when you started it was about the impact of the word "patriarchy" and how unfair it is against males. Look again....

If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

Like I said, you're spinning around that nail that's driven squarely through your foot and the floor.

 

[Me Myself]

Ah, so NOW the thread is about the meaning of "patriarchy". Yet when you started it was about the impact of the word "patriarchy" and how unfair it is against males. Look again....



Like I said, you're spinning around that nail that's driven squarely through your foot and the floor.

They are not mutually exclusive at all. I am complaining about all the things feminist theory adds to the actual definition of the term and the impact such dichotomy makes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

They are not mutually exclusive at all. I am complaining about all the things feminist theory adds to the actual definition of the term and the impact such dichotomy makes.

And yet you're speaking from the position that you've done oh-so-much study on the topic. You've been called out by a number of us in the thread on your misconceptions, and yet you're persisting on continuing this sad attempt at discussion on what patriarchy is and what it isn't, as well as what all the things feminist theory adds....with your one look into a wiki entry on feminism and your youtube viewing on one feminist lecture.

How charming.

 

[Me Myself]

And yet you're speaking from the position that you've done oh-so-much study on the topic. You've been called out by a number of us in the thread on your misconceptions, and yet you're persisting on continuing this sad attempt at discussion on what patriarchy is and what it isn't, as well as what all the things feminist theory adds....with your one look into a wiki entry on feminism and your youtube viewing on one feminist lecture.

How charming.

I never said I have done a lot of research on the topic. Where have I said that? Why you keep putting words on my posts?

I said it is not part of the meaning of patriarchy, yet they are adding to it ia way that causes inequality to be primarily male charged.

It is not necesary to make a big stuty to see the differences between the actual definition by Oxford dictionary and the definitions that you yourself (yes I am trusting on you as a source) say is one of those of feminism.

What par tof what I am doing needs a big study? We both agree in that feminism says that gender differences are the result of patriarchy. You ve said it plenty. We can both see the oxford dictionary with the actual definition.

So we can both see these two concepts. I am arguing what this feminist concept does by associations by adding this elements that are not part of the actual definition of patriarchy to patriarchy.

 

[crossfire]

**sigh**
Here is the opening post:

If feminism is fighting gender roles, then why did they choose to call "patriarchy" to all the unequal privileges and opressions of men and women that currently exist in diferent levels of intensity around the world?

It is gender inequality that favors and disfavors men and women depending on the context. Why then charge it with a male quality?

I can undersand the movement being called feminism to a point, and given its origins, because it fights injustices to women because of unequality. The problem is he second it choose to call this indquality "pariachism" it did itself a diservice by atracking the equality they say to profess.

I have read and understand the reasons they call it patriarchy, but do y honestly think such a term doesnt unwittingly perpetuate the image of the abusive man? To equate the abusive system to a male persona and the solution to a female persona? T equate equality to female and unequality to male? I know they dont do it in their definitions, but the associations speak miles and miles, and we do know it has bite them in the behind by now because a lot of people associate feminism to radical feminism.

I is because of the name. Names have power, words have power.

The usage of the word "Patriarchy" came into existence long before the word "feminism" did, so you can't blame the name on feminists.

From etymology online:

patriarchy (n.) 1560s, in ecclesiastical sense, from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhes (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" first recorded 1630s.

feminism (n.) 1851, "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895, from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism.

feminist (n.) 1893, from French féministe (1872); cf. feminism. As an adjective by 1897. Womanist sometimes was tried as a native alternative.​

 

[Me Myself]

**sigh**
Here is the opening post:


The usage of the word "Patriarchy" came into existence long before the word "feminism" did, so you can't blame the name on feminists.

From etymology online:

patriarchy (n.) 1560s, in ecclesiastical sense, from Greek patriarkhia, from patriarkhes (see patriarch). Meaning "system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community" first recorded 1630s. feminism (n.) 1851, "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895, from French féminisme (1837); see feminine + -ism.feminist (n.) 1893, from French féministe (1872); cf. feminism. As an adjective by 1897. Womanist sometimes was tried as a native alternative.​

Yes, I have said it lenty of times, and I agree with THAT definition. My roblem is the parts added by feminist theorists.

Edit:
This means, as I said it in the OP when they say that ALL gender role classifications are a form of patriarchy or a result of patriarchy. Where is the evidence for this? Patriarchy as a concept you can see is a SPECIFIC form of discrimination were only males are allowed to be leaders. It is wrong, but it is not all forms of discriminations including those that wring men. It is just one specific form of discrimination.


Calling all sex and gender discrimination "patriarchy" is deceiving, as yu can see frothe very term you quoted.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, I have said it lenty of times, and I agree with THAT definition. My roblem is the parts added by feminist theorists.

Tis means, as I said it in the OP when they say that ALL gender role classifications are a form of patriarchy or a result of patriarchy. Where is the evidence for this? Patriarchy as a concept you can see is a SPECIFIC form of discrimination were only males are allowed to be leaders. It is wrong, but it is not all forms of discriminations including those that wring men. It is just one specific form of discrimination.


Calling all sex and gender discrimination "patriarchy" is deceiving, as yu can see frothe very term you quoted.

Well, what do you want to call it then? How about the a**holes who are in charge? Would that be a more gender-neutral, politically correct term for you?

 

[Me Myself]

Well, what do you want to call it then? How about the a**holes who are in charge? Would that be a more gender-neutral, politically correct term for you?

Inequality of course. Or gender inequality. It would be more approapiate.

Female on male rape doesnt have to do with patriarchy, it has to do with inequality, the diminished importance given to domestic abuse of men by women doesnt have to do withu patriarchy, but with gender inequality, or gender roles. Not with men being favored for leadership.

When you talk about males being favored for leadership THEN patriarchy becomes an accurate term.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never said I have done a lot of research on the topic. Where have I said that? Why you keep putting words on my posts?

Again, I was being facetious. You haven't done any study into the subject, and therefore come to the debate with very little except assumptions based on what I have said here, what Alceste has said, and a WHOLE LOT of what people who don't like feminism has said.

I said it is not part of the meaning of patriarchy, yet they are adding to it ia way that causes inequality to be primarily male charged.

It is not necesary to make a big stuty to see the differences between the actual definition by Oxford dictionary and the definitions that you yourself (yes I am trusting on you as a source) say is one of those of feminism.

I have stated repeatedly over and over and over again to NOT base me as a source if all you're looking for is a source to prop up as a reason to criticize feminism. Face it, MM, you've given far more credibility to critics before ever listening to what I've said, and when I suggested to read Simone de Beauvior or Betty Friedan as a basic start of Second Wave 20th century feminism, you said you don't have the money. Not any openness to look into it when you can - if this subject is that important to you - but an immediate dismissal due to lack of funds.

Does your library give you access to material?

What par tof what I am doing needs a big study? We both agree in that feminism says that gender differences are the result of patriarchy. You ve said it plenty. We can both see the oxford dictionary with the actual definition.

So we can both see these two concepts. I am arguing what this feminist concept does by associations by adding this elements that are not part of the actual definition of patriarchy to patriarchy.

And you have repeatedly mistaken and twisted what I've said in your efforts to disparage feminism. Pick up a book. Look up Friedan and see how feminism has evolved since her work 50 years ago. Read up on the impact of The Second Sex. Check out the debates between anti-pornography feminists and sex-friendly feminists. Follow the progress of Third World suffragists and global feminists who are far more knowledgeable on their matters than I am. You will see how far-reaching feminism is and how it is so much more than the notion of what white American middle-class housewives are doing in their free time.

Let me ask you this, MM.....why are you so resistant to learning more about feminism?

 

[Me Myself]

Again, I was being facetious. You haven't done any study into the subject, and therefore come to the debate with very little except assumptions based on what I have said here, what Alceste has said, and a WHOLE LOT of what people who don't like feminism has said.



I have stated repeatedly over and over and over again to NOT base me as a source if all you're looking for is a source to prop up as a reason to criticize feminism. Face it, MM, you've given far more credibility to critics before ever listening to what I've said, and when I suggested to read Simone de Beauvior or Betty Friedan as a basic start of Second Wave 20th century feminism, you said you don't have the money. Not any openness to look into it when you can - if this subject is that important to you - but an immediate dismissal due to lack of funds.

Does your library give you access to material?



And you have repeatedly mistaken and twisted what I've said in your efforts to disparage feminism. Pick up a book. Look up Friedan and see how feminism has evolved since her work 50 years ago. Read up on the impact of The Second Sex. Check out the debates between anti-pornography feminists and sex-friendly feminists. Follow the progress of Third World suffragists and global feminists who are far more knowledgeable on their matters than I am. You will see how far-reaching feminism is and how it is so much more than the notion of what white American middle-class housewives are doing in their free time.

Let me ask you this, MM.....why are you so resistant to learning more about feminism?

I expected feminist in the forum to know about it. Now you tell me you are a bad source and u dont really trust what you say in the subject does give it a crazy twist.

That said, I have looked for the subject, I simply cant find much, and what I find does support the concept you have said of patriarchism=all inequality.

But sure, given you seemed passionate about it I thought you knew more about it, so then my mistake on believing you were a trustworthy source on their concepts.